4 ms·

Instead of paying the publishers, who contribute nothing to the work at all (remember they also charge us researchers hundreds of dollars just to get our work p

by qft 11y ago

Instead of paying the publishers, who contribute nothing to the work at all (remember they also charge us researchers hundreds of dollars just to get our work published), I'd rather donate the same $30 to sci-hub.

ansgri 11y ago
Another option: pay $5 to actual editors and designers, and $15 to reviewers. And save $10. Remember, the publisher typically doesn't even help with paper formatting, never mind copyediting. Unpaid reviewers (who allegedly agree to work for some 'reputation' — BS, they're anonymous) delegate the actual scientific review to the least busy student of those capable to write a syntactic semblance of a positive review. And then you're forced to pay $30 to have a chance to finally review it for yourself, as you're the only one interested in quality. Please pay the reviewers, or everybody (in many applied areas at least) will self-publish in blogs and judge quality on HN votes. Like it has happened with most of software research.
- dalke 11y ago
  Where do you get good editing and design work for $5? Most reviewers don't want $15 from the author. Quoting http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-20... : > Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them more likely to review; 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops to just 2.5% if the author had to cover the cost. Acknowledgement in the journal is the most popular option.
  - facetube 11y ago
    I suspect the parent meant $5 per sale; if you were selling millions of copies of papers, you'd have a substantial editing and design budget.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Ahh, that makes sense - I missed the context. When does it end? I'm reading papers from the 1960s and '70s - where should I send the $5? Do I adjust for inflation? And how do I send Deutsche Marks to West Germany?

by qft 11y ago

ansgri 11y ago

Another option: pay $5 to actual editors and designers, and $15 to reviewers. And save $10. Remember, the publisher typically doesn't even help with paper formatting, never mind copyediting. Unpaid reviewers (who allegedly agree to work for some 'reputation' — BS, they're anonymous) delegate the actual scientific review to the least busy student of those capable to write a syntactic semblance of a positive review. And then you're forced to pay $30 to have a chance to finally review it for yourself, as you're the only one interested in quality. Please pay the reviewers, or everybody (in many applied areas at least) will self-publish in blogs and judge quality on HN votes. Like it has happened with most of software research.

dalke 11y ago
Where do you get good editing and design work for $5? Most reviewers don't want $15 from the author. Quoting http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-20... : > Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them more likely to review; 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops to just 2.5% if the author had to cover the cost. Acknowledgement in the journal is the most popular option.
- facetube 11y ago
  I suspect the parent meant $5 per sale; if you were selling millions of copies of papers, you'd have a substantial editing and design budget.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Ahh, that makes sense - I missed the context. When does it end? I'm reading papers from the 1960s and '70s - where should I send the $5? Do I adjust for inflation? And how do I send Deutsche Marks to West Germany?